You have a good camera in the 60D sure the 7D is a bit better but, If you going to get deeper in to this you shoud gofo L glass like a 17 to 40 or 70 to 200 a good 28,50,85 and so on. I am not sure about buying EF-S glass, if you go someday for a FF camera they will have to be sold. I would say for now the 60D will do anything you will ask of it and more. Good photos are made by taking good shots, not alway by buying a somewhat better camera. Save your money. Get L glass and then a FF camera like a 5D mk3. yes it will show up someday.

Logged

killswitch

You have a good camera in the 60D sure the 7D is a bit better but, If you going to get deeper in to this you shoud gofo L glass like a 17 to 40 or 70 to 200 a good 28,50,85 and so on. I am not sure about buying EF-S glass, if you go someday for a FF camera they will have to be sold. I would say for now the 60D will do anything you will ask of it and more. Good photos are made by taking good shots, not alway by buying a somewhat better camera. Save your money. Get L glass and then a FF camera like a 5D mk3. yes it will show up someday.

I own a 7D and love it, i also own a 70-200 2.8L IS II, a 1.4X EF III, a 100 2.8L IS, a 580EX II, and an 18-135 kit lens. I won't give you a recommendation on a second body, but i will say that from my personal experience i have found that good quality lenses made my experience MUCH more enjoyable than anything i could have spent money on. I also made all of my lens purchases with growth in mind, meaning that if i do decide to go full frame in the future, i have all EF lenses to allow me to do so without the worry of having to sell off EF-S lenses. I know that everyone's budgets and goals are different, but this seemed to be the most logical route for me. Bottom line is that i would recommend a slightly cheaper body in favor of better lenses. L series lenses are an addiction, and if you shoot with a monopod or tripod at all, you can get away with the non-IS models and save alot of money and lens weight at the same time...

I own a 7D and love it, i also own a 70-200 2.8L IS II, a 1.4X EF III, a 100 2.8L IS, a 580EX II, and an 18-135 kit lens. ...i have all EF lenses to allow me to do so without the worry of having to sell off EF-S lenses.

You've got that right, i'm trying to decide on a prime that will give me a good wide angle on the cropped sensor, as well as a standard zoom. Kind of caught up in all of the rumors now, and hoping a 24-70 2.8L II shows up soon. Been eyeing up the 16-35 2.8L II, the 24 1.4 II, the 35 1.4, and the 24-70 2.8L. I have also been looking at zeiss primes, but i think for certain situations i will prefer autofocus, leading me to believe i will be sticking with a canon prime.

You've got that right, i'm trying to decide on a prime that will give me a good wide angle on the cropped sensor, as well as a standard zoom. Kind of caught up in all of the rumors now, and hoping a 24-70 2.8L II shows up soon. Been eyeing up the 16-35 2.8L II, the 24 1.4 II, the 35 1.4, and the 24-70 2.8L. I have also been looking at zeiss primes, but i think for certain situations i will prefer autofocus, leading me to believe i will be sticking with a canon prime.

Technically, 'wide angle' means 35mm or shorter on FF, therefore 22mm or shorter on APS-C. Thus, the only Canon primes that will give you a wide angle on APS-C are the EF 14mm f/2.8L II and the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (also, the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but you're probably looking for a rectilinear lens). The 24mm lenses come close (just barely in the normal range), but the 35mm f/1.4L is absolutely a normal lens on APS-C.

In fact, with an APS-C sensor you'll get better IQ with the high-end EF-S zooms (17-55mm, 15-85mm) than their approximate FF L-series equivalents (24-70mm and 24-105mm, respectively) when comparing on the same APS-C body. Also, the high end EF-S lenses hold their value quite well. For example, although I still have my 17-55mm, I sold my 10-22mm when I bought a 5DII and 16-35mm II, and after nearly a year of use I only lost $50 on the sale of the lens. That was before the round of price hikes earlier this year - currently, used prices for the 17-55mm are running around what I paid for the lens brand new, although since it optically outperforms the 16-35mm II on my 7D (better resolution and less CA), and has IS, I'm holding onto the 17-55mm as a general purpose lens for the 7D.

Personally, I think it's better to get the lenses best-suited to the body you're currently using, and worry about a possible FF upgrade when you are actually making that upgrade. That's especially true depending on the lens(es) you plan to get - for exmaple, if you're looking at the 24-105mm, that's much cheaper in the 5DII kit, and during the spring and fall lens rebate programs, rebates on some lenses are often doubled when you buy a body at the same time.

Primes are a different story, in that there's only one EF-S prime. But even with L primes, you'll have a different lens if/when you get a FF body so it's tough to pick a single focal length that works as you want on both formats.

That's why i figured on a 24mm (38.4) or 35mm (56), because it would be a useful focal length on either format and has a wide apeture for good low light performance. Good advice on the EF-S lenses, though i'm not completely sold on them given their price and no weather resistance. I bought the camera in early march, the two lenses in late march, and have been pulling my hair out trying to decide which lenses i would choose to cover wide and normal zoom while still having a wide and constant apeture. The other two lenses i bought without hesitation and i love them, but the last two i need are tough to decide on. I've read and watched as many reviews as i could help to in the meantime, but i'm still not 100% on my best option. Thank you for the insight, which is helpful considering you own my camera plus some of the lenses i am considering.

Just FYI, the 35L is not weather sealed, so if that's an important feature for you, consider the 24L II instead. Personally, I prefer 35mm to 24mm on my 5DII for a fast prime - I use it as a nighttime walkaround lens, and 24mm is a bit too wide for my style.

FWIW, for the wide-to-normal zoom range on APS-C with weather sealing, the 17-40mm meets that (although it's soft in the corners even on APS-C and has a substantial barrel distortion). The 16-35mm II, while falling a little short of the 17-55mm for IQ, is fine on the 7D, and also weather sealed. But, it's expensive, and you need to factor in the cost of a UV/clear filter to complete the sealing (and good quality 82mm filters aren't cheap).

I appreciate the advise sincerely, i go from thinking i know what i want to having no idea. There are many canon branded lenses that fit what i am looking for, to an extent, but all differ in small ways that make them largely different from each other. I hope to build up a number of useful lenses over time, but for right now i would like a fast normal zoom, and either a normal to wide/normal length prime, or a wide-ish fast zoom. In your opinion, how does no IS affect the 16-35 and 24-70 L 2.8 lenses? My lenses are IS, and i like to handhold shoot alot but do own both a monopod and tripod (just like to shoot by hand when possible).

In your opinion, how does no IS affect the 16-35 and 24-70 L 2.8 lenses? My lenses are IS, and i like to handhold shoot alot but do own both a monopod and tripod (just like to shoot by hand when possible).

Depends on focal length and subject. If you're shooting static subjects or subjects where you want an element of motion blur, IS can be wonderful - I've taken 0.5 s - 1.5 s waterfall shots handheld with IS. But if your subjects are moving, it's less useful in the wide-to-short tele range. Normally, you need at least 1/30 s (and 1/60 s is better) to shoot people - even posing, people have slight involuntary movement that affects sharpness. At 50mm, you are probably shooting at 1/80 s on APS-C just based on the 1/focal length guideline (that's what Canon bodies use to set shutter speed in Av mode, for example), and that's fast enough to freeze a person for a portrait-type shot, which is probably what's behind people saying that IS in not needed on a 24-70mm (i.e. they're shooting people with a FF body).

I'd suggest an experiment - before you offload that 18-135mm IS, shoot for a day or two with the IS turned off. See what your keeper rate is like compared to shooting with IS on, and use that to guide your decision about how beneficial IS would be for you in that focal range.

Thanks again, i also was going to set the lens at focal lengths to see roughly what i would be seeing/shooting if it was a prime with a fixed focal length. I'm not in a rush really, but it would be nice to have a lens with a wider FOV than i have now to shoot the fall colors that will be on the way around here in a month or so (but that's not a good enough reason for me to rush into a lens buy).

Get a room, you two! Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass. Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2? A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well. Enjoy your new purchases!